ArticleHerz2025
Outcome of edge-to-edge vs. surgical repair in patients with functional mitral regurgitation and reduced left ventricular function.
Article in Herz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Functional mitral valve regurgitation outcomes by treatment modality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed survival data.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the midterm outcome of percutaneous edge-to-edge repair (TEER) using the first-generation MitraClip system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) with surgical repair, in patients with severe functional mitral regurgitation (fMR) and reduced left ventricular function (LVEF).
methodsThe data of consecutive patients with severe fMR and LVEF ≤ 45%, who underwent either isolated surgical repair or MitraClip implantation between January 2007 and December 2015, were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data after 12 and 24 months were obtained in both groups. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for intergroup differences in baseline characteristics.
resultsA total of 167 patients with significant fMR and LVEF ≤ 45% were identified, who underwent either isolated surgical mitral valve repair (n = 83, 49.7%) or MitraClip (n = 84, 50.3%) implantation. Because the two groups had very different risk profiles, propensity scores were calculated for age, sex, EuroSCORE, LVEF, and coronary artery disease, which reduced the number of patients to 74 (38 in the clip group and 36 in the surgical group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of survival, number of reinterventions, heart failure symptoms according to New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, degree of mitral regurgitation, and LVEF.
conclusionIn this retrospective analysis of patients with severe fMR and LVEF ≤ 45%, the comparison between surgical repair, edge-to-edge repair and a first-generation MitraClip device showed similar midterm outcomes in terms of survival, number of reinterventions, NYHA class, degree of mitral regurgitation, and LVEF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39982500What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.